Though Susan Glaspell focuses her one-act play, Trifles, on one woman, Minnie Wright, she never actually makes an appearance. It seems strange that an author would exclude the main character from her play. The story involves a murder investigation, and the Sheriff has come to Minnie Wright’s home with the intent of finding evidence to assure her conviction. With him he brings Mr. Hale, the neighbor who found the body, Mrs. Hale, and his own wife, Mrs. Peters. The women have come along to collect some of Mrs. Wright’s belongings to bring to her while she is in custody. Ultimately, it’s the women who discover the smoking gun the men are looking for, and out of sympathy for Mrs. Wright and solidarity against the men, they choose to hide the evidence from the Sheriff. It is this deeply engrained conflict between genders that drives the play and is fortified by Minnie Wright’s absence. While the men have come to her home to do the important work and investigate, the women have come along to collect a few of Minnie’s belongings and bring them to her in prison. The men belittle this trivial errand and mock the women for their concerns for “trifles” (3) while they have the serious assignment to complete. Already there is a visible schism forming between the two sexes. One of the first things the women discover is a quilt that Minnie was putting together. Mrs. Hale, upon finding it, says: “Here, this is the one she was working on, and look at the sewing! All the rest of it has been so nice and even. And look at this! It’s all over the place! Why, it looks as if she didn’t know what she was about” (5). With this remark in mind, the quilt can be viewed as a metaphor for Minnie’s emotional state over time. Like her stitches, she began neatly and controlled, like any good and obedient housewife. As a woman, she was expected to be quiet and subservient to her husband. She played this role perfectly until the end, when her stitches became erratic and agitated, suggesting some emotional turmoil or conflict. This alone isn’t enough to give a good picture of Glaspell’s absent protagonist, but it is a start. When the women find the birdcage, they wonder if she ever had a bird. Mrs. Peters comments that “there was a man around [the year before] selling canaries cheap, but [Mrs. Peters didn’t] know as she took one; maybe she did. She used to sing real pretty herself” (6), and Mrs. Hale further suggests that “she was kind of like a bird herself” (6). Even the anecdote about the cat helps convince us of this. It alludes to the classic discord between cats and birds, raising the question that maybe Minnie saw herself as a bird, and furthermore identified with the canary that we later find out she did actually have. She might’ve felt trapped in her marriage like the bird trapped in its cage. The women find the dead canary shortly after in a “pretty box” (6). It is evident how much Minnie cared for the bird from the gentle way with which she intended to bury it. She wrapped it in silk, a very expensive fabric, and not the kind that one would typically use to wrap a dead animal with. The fact that she intended to bury it at all is proof of her relationship with the bird. They soon discover the bird’s cause of death, and the women talk about what a cold and insensitive man Mr. Wright was. Mrs. Hale points out that “Mr. Wright wouldn’t like the bird—a thing that sang. She used to sing. He killed that too” (7). You begin to understand Minnie’s motive for doing what she did. Maybe she killed him preemptively out of fear that he would do to her as he did to the bird. Or it was possible that because of her relationship with the bird, its murder was tantamount to her own and she killed him out of rage. The murder weapon seems very appropriate with this knowledge. He strangled the bird, so she strangled him. Because of this, it is clear that Mr. Wright’s death was the product of this war between genders. Mrs. Hale remarks that Minnie Wright was once “…real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and—fluttery. How—she—did—change” (6). It becomes apparent that Mr. Wright stifled her spirit throughout their marriage, and it finally broke her. All of this can be pieced together without ever meeting Minnie Wright. Without her there, the emotions seem more profound. It’s like the old saying we always heard in our elementary school English classes: show not tell. Glaspell shows the reader exactly what Minnie was experiencing and allows them to sympathize in a way that is much more effective than just telling her story. In addition, Minnie’s physical absence combined with her subtle presence almost makes her function as a ghost. It’s as if she died with the bird, her spirit killed by the man who was “like a raw wind that cuts to the bone” (6).In another sense, however, Minnie isn’t present in the play because she doesn’t have to be. The play isn’t about Minnie, specifically. It’s about the conflict between genders, as evidenced by the Sheriff and Mr. Hale versus Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, as well as Minnie and Mr. Wright. She wasn’t present because Glaspell didn’t want you to sympathize with her too much to the point where you lose focus and only see the main storyline. This play was as much about Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters as it was about Minnie. It was their understanding of her situation that led them to hide the evidence and in effect let Minnie get away with murder, as we can assume she probably will not be convicted without the evidence they found. Their show of solidarity makes them accessories to this murder and permanently sets the genders opposite one another. This, combined with the fact that you only ever see the women’s side of the story, aims to align your sympathies with the female side. Had Glaspell given more time to the male perspective, the play wouldn’t have been nearly as effective or powerful. You might’ve simply dismissed Minnie’s actions as cold and criminal, and the conflict between her and her husband, as well as women and men in general, would have been lost. With this in mind, it follows that Minnie is actually much more present in the story than any of the men. They’re simply there to represent the opposition in this conflict. Glaspell’s decision to keep the main character out of the main action of the play was a strategic move to manipulate the sympathies of the reader and emphasize the issue of a gender conflict. She purposely left out an integral character because her absence achieved more than her presence. It left a space for readers to fill with their interpretations and understandings of the play, and in the end, was more meaningful than if Minnie Wright had been there the whole time explaining everything.